| dc.description.abstract | The usage of diatopic markings indicate geographical restrictions for the use of a particular lexical unit. In the specific case of the Spanish language, the production of Portuguese-Spanish bilingual dictionaries does not seem to give the due relevance to linguistic variations. Considering the lack of a deeper reflection on the linguistic diversity of the Spanish languages lexicography, this paper discusses the need for the standardization of markings for dialectal usage within bilingual dictionaries, as well as describes how such markings are inserted within bilingual Spanish language dictionaries. Within the lexical level, the presence/absence of different items was analyzed, as well as discussions which the authors convey in their works. The theoretical reference was based on the concepts of Lexicology and bilingual Lexicography - Biderman (1978, 1984, 1998a, b), Coseriu (1982), Krieger (2006a, b) and Werner (1982), Linguistic variation and standards Coseriu (1982) and, specifically, on the Spanish linguistic variation, Aleza Izquierdo and Enguita Utrilla (2010), Haensch et al. (1982).The corpus which offers the empirical basis to the present study was comprised of 268 lexemes and their variants, extracted from the Michaelis Dicionário escolar espanhol: espanhol / português português / espanhol and Dicionário Santillana para estudantes: espanhol / português português / espanhol. The analysis was conducted through the verification of the content available within the bilingual dictionaries against the Spanish reference corpora, currently available for online consultation - Corpus del español; Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA); Corpus del español del siglo XXI (CORPES), dictionaries of Americanisms and the dialectal project which deals with the linguistic variation within the Spanish language, VARILEX: Variación léxica del español en el mundo, as well as research within specific websites from each country. The results show that, although the dictionaries analyzed contemplate a Hispanic-American lexical repertoire, the absence of a standard entry for the presentation of regional markings was observed in both directions: Portuguese-Spanish and Spanish-Portuguese. The main inconsistencies were related to the lack of a particular region or country, which was present in approximately 40% of the analyzed entries, omission of diatopic markings (present in about 25% of entries) and, to a lesser extent, generalization of certain geographic extensions (present in approximately 15% of entries). Therefore, it can be concluded that the data imprecision occurred, in part, due to the lack of an explicit lexicographical proposal regarding the treatment of Spanish linguistic variations within the entries of the consulted works. | |
